2017 (11) TMI 1124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on challenging an order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 28.09.2007 holding that the application is not maintainable in view of third Proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and accordingly, rejected the same under Section Section 127C(1) of the Act. Section 127B deals with application for settlement of cases. Under third Proviso to Section 127B(1), no application under sub-section (1) of Section 127B shall be made in relation to goods to which section 123 applies or to goods in relation to which any offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) has been committed. Section 123(1) of the Act stated that where any goods to which t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... how cause as to why the classification of goods as made in the Bill of Entry dated 26.09.2006 should not be rejected and the goods imported classifiable under Chapter heading 54075290 claiming for basic custom duty exemption under Notification No.14/2006 should not be denied and why duty amount of Rs. 21.15 lakhs should not be demanded, etc. The petitioner did not submit its objections to the show cause notice but chose to file an application before the Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Act. This application has been rejected by the impugned order. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Settlement Commission relied upon the order passed by the Special Bench of the CESTAT in Special Bench Ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.C.Mohan vs. Commissioner of Customs (air), Customs House, Chennai-1 reported in 2007-TIOL-700-HC-MAD-CUS. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dharmesh Devchand Pansuirya vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (336) ELT 402 (Guj.). 6.After elaborately hearing the learned counsels for the parties and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, to decide the correctness of the impugned order the first and foremost to be done is to refer to Section 123(1) of the Act which reads as follows: "SECTION 123. Burden of proof in certain cases. (1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X